Re: [IPsec] IANA ikev2 registry and FC values

"Dan Harkins" <> Thu, 17 January 2013 17:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5922021F869F for <>; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:19:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.265
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6hMpZ1BTMoxW for <>; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:19:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A11F21F857A for <>; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:19:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC10310224052; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:19:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (SquirrelMail authenticated user by with HTTP; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:19:16 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:19:16 -0800
From: Dan Harkins <>
To: Tero Kivinen <>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.14 [SVN]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
Subject: Re: [IPsec] IANA ikev2 registry and FC values
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:19:17 -0000


On Thu, January 17, 2013 9:03 am, Tero Kivinen wrote:
> I got question now about the values allocated for the "IKEv2 in the
> Fibre Channel Security Association Management Protocol" and their use
> in the normal IPsec use over IP. This question was about support for
> AUTH_HMAC_MD5_128 and AUTH_HMAC_SHA1_160 for IPsec over IP, instead of
> using the normal AUTH_HMAC_MD5_96 and AUTH_HMAC_SHA1_96 values
> everybody in IP world are using. When those values were allocated it
> was assumed that they were only to be used in the FC world.
> I noticed that when all other RFC4595 allocated numbers have FC_ in
> their names, but these AUTH_* does not have those. Also there is
> nothing that explictly forbid their use in the IKEv2/ESP over IP, it
> has been implicit because there is nothing that says they can be used
> in the IP world either.
> One of the reasons for these is that this allocation happened when we
> had this process flaw and those drafts never came to the IANA expert
> for review (i.e. to me), so I only did some early comments to their
> -00 draft, and then later noticed that the values had been added to
> the registry.
> To clear up this confusion, I would like to add note to the IANA table
> saying "Only for Fibre Channel use" for those two values.
> Does anybody have any objections for doing that?

  I don't actually see what the problem is that this note would solve.
Unless there's a problem then I have an objection to adding this note.
Can you restate the problem?